It's just my opinion and a SWAG but the 150-160 model seems pretty likely *if* anything happens.

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2013/7/30/45653...on-members

For the powerful schools like Alabama and USC there is the desire to play 8 home games. The Millions of dollars per home game made at the gate, the concessions stand, and in the parking lot are too good to pass up. By some estimates Ohio State pulls in about five million dollars per home game they sell out.

The Buckeyes are going to sell out opening week games no matter who the opponent is so why not buy a game against UB and earn four million or so after the payout? It's the same thing the mid majors do with FCS teams just on a bigger scale.

The more modest P5 football programs need home games against mid majors to go bowling every once in a while. A power school like Texas sitting home happens once in a blue moon. For some of the lesser P5 schools a bowl is really something special and usually it's owned to at least one win against the G5.

Just look at Iowa State. The Cyclones have been in just three bowl games since 2005. Each of those years (2009, 2011, 2012) the Cyclones finished the season at 6-6. In 2009 they beat North Dakota (FCS), Kent (MAC), and Army. In 2011 they owed their sixth win to North Dakota State (FCS), then last season they beat Tulsa (CUSA) and Western Illinois (FCS).

As an aside their 2009 Bowl Win came over a 6-6 Minnesota team who needed to beat Air Force (MWC), and South Dakota State (FCS).

I think the funniest part about the whole "programs with similar budgets" comment, is that one of the largest athletic spending gaps exists within the conference it came from.

In the Big 12:
Texas -- Spent $133,686,815 in 2011
Iowa State -- Spent $48,591,617 in 2011
Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

That's right, Texas has a budget more than twice that of the smallest public conference member. I can only imagine Baylor/TCU has an even bigger difference compared to the conference giants.